GENERAL LIABILITY ; NEGLIGENCE, ETC. 581 



It is the duty of the company to carry a headHght to 

 avoid collision, though this may prevent the engineer from 

 seeing objects on the track, as a result of which cattle are run 

 over.^* A non-expert witness may testify his opinion as 

 to how far the headlight throws a light forward and to the 

 right and left.^^ 



A question that has often arisen is whether or not, under 

 the statute, an action lies against a railway company where 

 there has been no actual collision between the engine or cars 

 and the animal. The wording of the particular statute has 

 been an important factor in the decision of these cases. In 

 New York, where the action is grounded on an injury caused 

 by the company's "engines or agents," it has been held that 

 actual contact is necessary: an injury caused by jumping 

 from the track is not a sufificient basis of action.^" So, a 

 company is not liable for an injury to an animal straying 

 on the track and becoming caught between the ties of a 

 bridge : the bridge cannot be said to be an "agent." ^^ It 

 is otherwise where the animal is not a trespasser and dies as 

 the result of falling into a cut, owing to the company's failure 

 to fence, as that is a case outside of the scope of the statute.*^ 



So, in Indiana, where the statute makes the company liable 

 when stock is killed or injured by the locomotive or cars, 

 a collision must be averred and shown.^^ But this does not 



=• Bellefontaine & Ind. R. Co. v. Schruyhart, lo O. St. Ii6. 



" St. Louis & San Fran. R. Co. v. Thomason, 59 Ark. 140. 



=° Hyatt V. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 64 Hun (N. Y.) S42. 



" Knight V. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 25, reversing 

 30 Hun (N. Y.) 25. 



== Graham v. Delaware & H. Can. Co., 46 Hun. (N. Y.) 386, distinguish- 

 ing Knight V. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., supra, as in that case the 

 plaintiff did not own the premises adjoining the railway and the defendant 

 was therefore guilty of no negligence with respect to fences between its 

 road and his land, and he was entitled to no relief except by statute, which 

 statute did not apply. c- t -o 



== Ohio & Miss. R. Co. V. Cole, 41 Ind.. 331 1 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. K. 

 Co V Troxell, 57 id. 246; Bait., P. & C. R. Co. v. Thomas, 60 id. 107; 

 Croy V. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 97 id- 126; Jeffersonville, M. & L 



